Court allows challenge to assessment orders for cancellation of registration certificates with retrospective effect.

The court allowed the writ petitions challenging assessment orders for multiple years (2011-2015) related to the cancellation of registration certificates of selling dealers with retrospective effect. Relying on a Supreme Court ruling, the court held that the cancellation of registration certificates retrospectively does not justify reversing input tax credit already availed by the petitioners. The respondent was unable to deny the petitioners' input tax credit benefits based on established legal principles. The petitions were allowed, following court and Supreme Court precedents, without costs awarded, and related miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders for multiple years.

Analysis:
The writ petitions were filed against assessment orders for the years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015. The petitioner's counsel referred to a previous judgment in JINSASAN DISTRIBUTORS v. CTO, highlighting that the issue raised in the current petitions favored the petitioner. The Additional Government Pleader acknowledged the arguments made by the petitioner's counsel and mentioned that a writ appeal had been filed against the order, which was pending without a stay order.

The crucial issue revolved around the cancellation of registration certificates of selling dealers with retrospective effect. The assessment orders were based on input tax credit availed by the petitioners from registered dealers. The judgment cited a similar case where the Supreme Court ruled that a purchasing dealer is entitled to rely on the registration certificate of the selling dealer, regardless of any retrospective cancellation. Therefore, the cancellation of registration certificates with retrospective effect cannot justify reversing the input-tax credit already availed of by the petitioners. The court held that the respondent could not deny the benefit of input-tax credit to the petitioner based on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, citing the precedent set by the court and the Supreme Court. No costs were awarded, and the related miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---